Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?

I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.

What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.

Don't most christians consider God and Jeebs to be one and the same?

That being said, while the Bible's misogyny (some examples) is for the most part not directly attributable to Jeebs himself, doesn't his actions count for something? Out of 12 disciples, not a single worthy woman? I guess there's always the possibility of him being gay

>> ^bareboards2:

Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.

*talks *equality

Adding video to channels (Equality, Talks) - requested by xxovercastxx.

The same scripture says men, love your wives. Which one is the bigger commitment? The real question is can you love while also submitting, and can you submit as a form of love. Or you can just be full of hate and bigotry and pretend your way of life is the best way of life there is and turn off your caring organs.

I don't identify as Christian, but I have been steeped in its images my whole life. Plus Sunday Bible School when I was seven. Perfect attendance. Jesus was my buddy when I was little.

And no, I don't think Christians consider God and Jesus the same. Jesus is strictly New Testament and brought a message of love. I think that is why no one laughed at that joke -- it doesn't match his message.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but I do know that Mary of Magdelene was a prostitute who he consorted with and defended. "God" would never have done that. The Nag Hammadi Gospels were discovered and one of them was purportedly written by Mary. The bible being so male-centric is in part due to a historical power struggle -- decisions were made about what was to be kept and what was tossed aside -- and the men won.

The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels is fascinating reading.

I haven't read it but I am leaning towards making the effort -- Thomas Jefferson's “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth" which is just Jesus's words only.


>> ^hpqp:

Don't most christians consider God and Jeebs to be one and the same?
That being said, while the Bible's misogyny (some examples) is for the most part not directly attributable to Jeebs himself, doesn't his actions count for something? Out of 12 disciples, not a single worthy woman? I guess there's always the possibility of him being gay

The story of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute was basically made up afaik. I'm too lazy to look up a good source so here's some wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

Regardless of how sexist Jesus may or may not have been, the various christian churches since then were.

That makes it even more cool that she wasn't a prostitute. In fact, that the male centric church laid that onto her, instead of allowing her to be important to Jesus as an autonomous woman is another reason to be upset at the patriarchy.


>> ^AnomalousDatum:

The story of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute was basically made up afaik. I'm too lazy to look up a good source so here's some wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene
Regardless of how sexist Jesus may or may not have been, the various christian churches since then were.

As many have said, the church was proponent of sexism for a long time. There was also plenty of sexism preceding and parallel to Christianity.

The gospel itself portrays Jesus as if anything, a feminist. He resists judging women for their sexuality. He defends a woman who wants to sit and learn about religion instead of doing housework. Either Jesus himself was far more pro woman than his contemporaries, or the authors of the gospels were.

I think Maher is simply using the example of Jesus because many that practice bigotry seem to do so in his name. Whether Jesus himself would condone it or not is pretty irrelevant.

@bareboards2

The Jeebs character definitely made some interesting points about love, compassion and charity (it is suggested he got some of these from Buddhism), and ideas of social reform that could almost qualify him as proto-socialist. But the view of all-good all-loving Jeebs that moderate Christians are raised with today is a relatively recent phenomenon, with its roots in the deistic revisions of the Bible and Christian doctrine that began with the Enlightenment.

Having been raised in an evangelical cult, I know the Bible quite well, and can assure you that Jeebs is not all good. For one, the invention of eternal torture and hell is his invention (cf self-quote below); some of his parables are terribly authoritarian (e.g. Lk 19:11-27); he is divisive ("you're either with me or against me","I come not to bring peace but a sword", etc...) and even his treatment of women comes off as condescending at times, albeit much better than the patriarchal misogyny of the OT and St Paul (one example: he doesn't allow Mary to touch him after resurrecting, but allows Thomas (Jn 20:17-27).

I understand the urge to see Jeebs in a purely positive light though, heck, even my favourite poet (Percy Shelley), an avowed atheist and antitheist, tried to project Jesus in his (Shelley's) own image, i.e. as a humanist social reformer.

>> ^hpqp:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/smooman" title="member since October 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">smooman (quoting doesn't work)
Eternal damnation and hellfire are inventions of the character of Jesus (some of the more explicit examples: Mt. 10:28, Mt. 25:41, Mt. 25:46, Mk 9:47-48, Lk 10:15, Lk. 12:5, etc., not counting all the parables where "bad fruit/branches" are cast into "unquenchable fire").
One main point of departure between Christianity and Judaism is hell.
Some good online tools for Bible "study":
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

Except it is relevant -- this whole line of discussion was started because I was fascinated that Maher's joke got not a single laugh when sexism was laid at Jesus's feet and only got a laugh when God was blamed. Why didn't the audience laugh?

Those who practice bigotry aren't in Maher's audience, only those who are steeped in the current sanitization of Jesus (per @hpqp.) Like @Mikus_Aurelius, most non-(or lightly) -religious Americans think Jesus is a feminist.


>> ^ghark:

I think Maher is simply using the example of Jesus because many that practice bigotry seem to do so in his name. Whether Jesus himself would condone it or not is pretty irrelevant.

BTW old Thomas jefferson spent his time extracting moral lessons from the bible while throwing away all the superstitious bullshit. That's the Jefferson bible you're talking about right?>> ^bareboards2:


I haven't read it but I am leaning towards making the effort -- Thomas Jefferson's “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth" which is just Jesus's words only.

What kills me about Americans, including atheists and hardcore religious people alike, is maybe, just maybe, various religions are different approximations to describe a reality bigger than we can comprehend with reason based on empirical evidence alone. Nobody had a culture war when Einstein and others thought up explanations of quantum mechanics, phenomena concerning space/time continuum, and then ended up being wrong about some of it. We'd be much better off allowing speculation, whether it be religious or scientific in nature, and just accept it for what it is.

The only thing I ask, of both sides, is check your religion and scientific hypothesis at the door when debating what impacts us all, while coming more into agreement on what constitutes faith, actual knowledge, speculation, and facts.

Weird that one panel guest is famous ?for being gay and outspoken?

>> ^heropsycho:

What kills me about Americans, including atheists and hardcore religious people alike, is maybe, just maybe, various religions are different approximations to describe a reality bigger than we can comprehend with reason based on empirical evidence alone. Nobody had a culture war when Einstein and others thought up explanations of quantum mechanics, phenomena concerning space/time continuum, and then ended up being wrong about some of it. We'd be much better off allowing speculation, whether it be religious or scientific in nature, and just accept it for what it is.
The only thing I ask, of both sides, is check your religion and scientific hypothesis at the door when debating what impacts us all, while coming more into agreement on what constitutes faith, actual knowledge, speculation, and facts.


Ahh, the old non-overlapping magisteria idea. Nice idea, but it just doesn't work. The problem is that the two cover common ground. Science often directly contradicts what religious doctrine teaches, the prime example being evolution.

Right, so here's an idea. Just agree to disagree, and move the fu%* on! Teach evolution like the theory it is in science class, and let people make up their own minds. Teach christian ideas in the subjects where its relevant, like when it's being alluded to in a literature class. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to do or understand. Just because an idea is taught, comprehended, and understood, it doesn't mean it's believed in by any involved. I taught communism; I'm not a communist. I taught capitalism; I'm not a capitalist. There's value for everyone to learn and understand other ideas you disagree with.

I fully understand that knowledge is derived from multiple sources, and multiple sources conflict. Different religions conflict about the origins of man. Different people within the same religion disagree. Different scientists disagree. Why is it religious people can respectfully disagree about the origins of man, but a creationist and an evolutionist can't without biting each other's heads off?



>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^heropsycho:
What kills me about Americans, including atheists and hardcore religious people alike, is maybe, just maybe, various religions are different approximations to describe a reality bigger than we can comprehend with reason based on empirical evidence alone. Nobody had a culture war when Einstein and others thought up explanations of quantum mechanics, phenomena concerning space/time continuum, and then ended up being wrong about some of it. We'd be much better off allowing speculation, whether it be religious or scientific in nature, and just accept it for what it is.
The only thing I ask, of both sides, is check your religion and scientific hypothesis at the door when debating what impacts us all, while coming more into agreement on what constitutes faith, actual knowledge, speculation, and facts.

Ahh, the old non-overlapping magisteria idea. Nice idea, but it just doesn't work. The problem is that the two cover common ground. Science often directly contradicts what religious doctrine teaches, the prime example being evolution.

>> ^heropsycho:

Right, so here's an idea. Just agree to disagree, and move the fu% on! Teach evolution like the theory it is in science class, and let people make up their own minds. Teach christian ideas in the subjects where its relevant, like when it's being alluded to in a literature class. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to do or understand. Just because an idea is taught, comprehended, and understood, it doesn't mean it's believed in by any involved. I taught communism; I'm not a communist. I taught capitalism; I'm not a capitalist. There's value for everyone to learn and understand other ideas you disagree with.
I fully understand that knowledge is derived from multiple sources, and multiple sources conflict. Different religions conflict about the origins of man. Different people within the same religion disagree. Different scientists disagree. Why is it religious people can respectfully disagree about the origins of man, but a creationist and an evolutionist can't without biting each other's heads off?


You can "agree to disagree" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are things that are demonstrably true and things that are demonstrably false.

Besides, in the context of the video, this is not something where we can "all just get along". These are two particularly deranged individuals who are (potentially in Palins case) running for the most powerful position on earth. Hell, I don't even live in the US and the thought of wither of these two being president gives me nightmares.

As for teaching evolution in science class and creationism in religious studies/history/literature, I have no problem with that. In fact, I believe you cannot understand most great works of culture without understanding the society that gave rise to them and that means knowing the bible. And you should always seek to understand position you do not agree with, even if only to "understand the ways of ones enemy".

But it never ends there. Religions always try to push their agenda onto other parts of life, often using the tools of science to do so. (see the video of the WBC with iphones) People often deride Dawkins for being hostile and argumentative, but if an organised group spent millions trying to refute my lifes work with arguments that only an idiot like shinyblurry would believe, I'd be hostile too.

@heropsycho says: "Teach evolution like the theory it is"

I do hope you mean "theory" as in "scientific theory" (like the theory of gravity), and not as in "conspiracy theory".

This kind of rhetoric always comes back to God because that is what this is really about. Maher has a lifestyle that he doesn't want to be judged for. Much like most of the people here on the sift. The people with the biggest mouths about God are the ones with the most to hide.

John 3:19-21

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

This isn't about sexism in the bible (there isn't any), that is just a joke. People who hate God are unrepentant sinners who know they are guilty and will say anything to justify their sinful lifestyle. Moral people don't have a problem with God, it's the people who want to sin without consequence who hate Him. It's because your God given conscience has already judged you guilty. That's what you absolutely cannot stand, is the authority that is over you which tells you are wrong and under Gods judgement. Your stubborn pride cannot bear it and you are blind to the truth because of it.

If you loved the truth, and wanted to turn from your evil, God would lead you to Jesus in a second. Since you love your sin more than the truth, God lets you stay ignorant and deluded with lies.

bareboards2 It's great that you have some lingering residue of respect for Jesus, but He isn't your buddy.

John 15:14

You are my friends if you do what I command.

Btw, the gnostic gospels were ruled out because they were written by gnostics (read: NOT Christians) hundreds of years after the fact.

hpqp "Having been raised in an evangelical cult, I know the Bible quite well," Change that to not at all and we enter a realm of honesty. I mean, we have this comment "some of his parables are terribly authoritarian"..Really? He's God, of course they're authoritarian. This idea of Jesus as a great moral teacher is patently false. He is God in the flesh, with the power over life and death, and that is what He stated consistantly. He has a right to tell us what to do. Who knows how you were brought up but if you had any idea what was in the bible you would understand that Jesus is bigger than this trite understanding. The sad thing is you passed from life to death and you think you're free.

There are more lies about Jesus than any other person in history. He is the most lied about Person of all time, and I have personally encountered literally hundreds if not thousands of beliefs which are predicated in some way in denying who He is. Speaking of lies, ChaosEngine, there is plenty of evidence which shows evolution to be false. It is science fiction, not science fact.

Man, both barrels by Bill tonight.

Ripper.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Speaking of lies, ChaosEngine, there is plenty of evidence which shows evolution to be false.


and those mountains of evidence are.....................?

Maher has a lifestyle that he doesn't want to be judged for. Much like most of the people here on the sift. The people with the biggest mouths about God are the ones with the most to hide.


I'm glad you mention this as it's important. A lot of people think religion works through fear or love or something - but this, this here is it: shame is the fuel that powers religion. If someone can convince you that they know the truth, but that you are limited by your secret sins - even your thought crimes - then they have power over you forever. You, yourself, will always know exactly how unworthy you are, while you can't know their sins in nearly the same way.

Religion failing you? Your fault. God failing you? Your fault. Doubts? Your fault. Your reason? Always suspect. Leader? Always right, because he has the clear channel.

There's a reason every religion moves towards shame. It works. The ancient Jews had trouble because their rules were almost all outward. People could actually comply with them nearly completely. So they had to expand the rules out again and again, hedging and hedging until everyone was brought back in non-compliance (as that's the space where religion works best).

Christianity solved this problem by focusing on thought crime, and crimes of attitude. Were you really giving that gift in the proper spirit? Did your thoughts stray morally for a moment? These are brilliant - the perfect, impossible to comply with rules. Each person is thus locked in a tidy prison where they believe that everyone else is more righteous (and thus "gets it", because they don't have secret sins like you do), and thus those people (or their text) should be trusted over reason. If you wanted to refute their ideas, your first step would have to be to live perfectly (impossible, and also requires tremendous further investment in the religion to attempt). And you don't have to pound it in directly: the best way to make someone feel shame is to praise the congregation; furthering the implication that everyone is in on the secret but you. If you can, get testimonials.

Again, you want everyone to put up a front that they're "in on it", that they see the emperor's clothes. It's the "everyone else" that keeps everyone going. Nobody wants to break first.

But if you want to see this technique refined to its most pure, and it's most directed, look at Scientology. Watch videos where Scientology leaders are questioned. Their response is often "What's your crime?", with the implication being that it's your secret crimes that prevent you from understanding Scientology (or, especially, make you hate it). And, in Scientology's case, they have an extra twist of the knife: if you're a member, they likely know your "secret crimes" because you told them in some session. The Catholics had something similar going with confession, but they didn't have the same panache.

So, sb, I wonder what your response would be to a Scientologist - maybe one who said your religious experiences are the result of impious Thetans trying to deceive you (maybe you got some wacky Jesus Thetans actually talking to you, who knows)? Really, you'd understand if you went through a few sessions. And all your misunderstandings - the reasons you think Scientology is wrong - are a result of your pride in your own position, the extent to which Christianity faintly mirrors the real truth of Scientology, and how all your secret crimes (which we can all agree you have - it's guaranteed by the Bible, and most other books of religion) distort your thinking. Oh, and how all the psychologists have tried to stop Scientology and hurt its members. PS: don't go to a psychologist for help. Or your family.

That should all sound familiar. Most religions work about the same way. And how do you counter that? You can't directly - because the well is completely poisoned.

And it's the same from idealogues of every stripe and sort. According to someone who loves "Agile Programming", a failed Agile Programming project is the result of not being Agile enough. The opposite idealogue believes the project failed because the spec going in lacked details. Christianity not working for you? Doesn't make sense? You're not Christian enough, or else Jesus would be talking to you (or not, depending on denomination).

Why are you doubting? Because your doubt has pushed out faith. Cant' have faith if you doubt, can't get revelation without faith. You gotta get rid of that doubt man.

End result: you're wrong, we're right, shut up. And tell your friends.

But I suppose all this means I have a secret crime. You tell me, I wonder, is my secret crime a Christian secret crime, a Scientology secret crime, or a crime against Islam? So many things I'll never understand without changing my life first to be able to understand...

@jmzero

Am I arguing with you or Christopher Hitchens? I wonder if you have any original thoughts to share?

My comment wasn't about shame, it was about hypocripsy. I've noticed many people whose consciences are seared by their ignorance don't really have any shame. Now that immorality is socially acceptable they never have face up to who they really are. This is about hatred for God, and the reasons for it. This is about the mockers, the scoffers, the people like Maher whose level of personal corruption makes the subject completely unavoidable. His tongue cannot help but cry out against his judgement, because he feels bound by the conviction of his conscience.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against God and His followers have an agenda that goes far beyond their manufactured outrage. Such vileness, such apathy and hatred don't come from disagreements about social or philosophisical issues. It comes from a heart polluted with sin.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

The bible perfectly describes the human condition. It exposes people as immoral hypocrites who have never once lived up to their own standard, let alone Gods standard. Shame isn't a secret because everyone is found to be guilty. The great lie of the world is that people are generally good. They're not. People are generally sinful and anyone with two eyes can see that.

Romans 3:20

as it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

The fact that you think Christianity is some kind of conspiracy to control people is just patently false. It's a matter of history what happened and why. Even Dawkins admits Jesus is a historical figure. That the authors of the gospels willingly martyred themselves for that truth should tell you something.

I don't know or care what your "secret crime" is. Your mistake is thinking it is a sacret. What you've done in your life has been plainly seen by God and will be righteouesly judged by Him on judgement day. Whatever it is, if you don't repent you will be found guilty. The only question that matters here is whether the bible accurately describes the human condition, and specifically, your condition. God lets people who prefer evil to stay ignorant, to drown in the morass of their illogic, their hypocripsy, and the comfortable lies they tell themselves. Nothing I say is going to make you suddenly love the truth and hate evil and reform. If you can't be honest about who and what you, you'll stay right where you are. It's in Gods hands in any case.

>> ^bareboards2:

Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.


Jesus wasn't a sexist?

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim 2:11-12)

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. ( Eph. 5:22-24)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. ( 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

I'm not a Biblical scholar, as I said above. I know the Jesus from six years old Sunday School and what I have read in the liberal papers.

Jesus said all these things? Or did others say this about him? I honestly don't know.



>> ^jimnms:

>> ^bareboards2:
Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.

Jesus wasn't a sexist?
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim 2:11-12)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. ( Eph. 5:22-24)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. ( 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

Am I arguing with you or Christopher Hitchens? I wonder if you have any original thoughts to share?

Not to defend el Jeebs, but that's St Paul talking.

edit: unless you're of the @shinyblurry school of Biblical scholarship, in which case every word - sorry, Word - in the Bible is God's.

>> ^jimnms:

>> ^bareboards2:
Have you ever heard such a complete lack of response to a joke?
I think it was because it wasn't accurate -- the big JC isn't responsible for sexism.
What is interesting is that Maher fixed it later by saying well, actually, it was Jesus's dad -- and that got a response.

Jesus wasn't a sexist?
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim 2:11-12)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. ( Eph. 5:22-24)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. ( 1 Cor. 14:34-35)

>> ^hpqp:

Not to defend el Jeebs, but that's St Paul talking.



But isn't he relaying the preaching of Jebus? If the big JC didn't want any confusion over what he said, why didn't he write this shit down himself?

Great comments, jmzero. And an appropriately slippery response from sb.

To Bill Maher, and anyone on the Sift who thinks he has ever had a 'point' in his life... A pile of bull$#!+ wouldn't want to watch 1 second of this show because it would be afraid of getting crap on itself.

Really, BM? Really? You want to sit there and lecture people of faith about tolerance and mysoginy when you yourself are the worst mysoginist on the planet when it comes to Palin, Bachman, or any other conservative female? This twit takes the word 'sleazebucket' to a whole new low. What a lying, hypocritical specimen.

In other words - a typical neolib.

And factually ignorant to boot in regard to religion. Waste of breath to get into it, but ascribing 'mysoginy' to only religions is a typical neolib attempt to apply the time-honored tradition of retroactive standards. Mysogyny wasn't some sort of Christian invention. Nor was it even 'refined' by Christians. It was just the cold, hard, ugly, unfair way HUMANS existed for thousands of years. Women were on the short end of the stick in any facet of ancient life you want to name. But neolibs just love to sniff their noses at past problems and pretend that they only existed in the Christian world. Just ignore the fact that Christians have been (and remain) some of the strongest, most effective, transitional, and heartfelt movers of WOMENS rights, positive race relations, and yes even fair treatment for gays too.

And I notice the videosift hasn't posted the video of BM and his gay neolib buddies having a nice little joke about how they want to rape Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman.

"Tolerance". PTUI! Maher is the last person on the face of the planet with any moral authority to talk about issues relating to tolerance.

Angry. Angry man.

>> ^shinyblurry:

blah blah blah, god, jesus, wankery etc.

Speaking of lies, ChaosEngine, there is plenty of evidence which shows evolution to be false. It is science fiction, not science fact.


Hey cheers for providing the evidence to back up my assertion that you're an idiot. As I said before, you're not worthy of being debated, only mocked.

If you actually think he's a a sexist, you need your head examined. Does he make stereotypical jokes about women? Yes. Blacks? Yes. Men? Yes. Whites? Yes. He's not a racist, and he's not a sexist. The reason he's going after Palin and Bachmann is because they're up in the GOP polls, and they have TERRIBLE ideas. Have you not seen interviews of Palin especially? She's a train wreck, and that shouldn't be a debatable topic. This is coming from someone who would consider voting for a GOP candidate next year, but there's no way I'd consider either of them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact they're females. Their ideas are terrible, and even when they're called on things they say that are clearly wrong, they stand by it proudly. Utterly ridiculous.

And I'm sorry, but those who take the bible that literally are sexists. "Make me a sandwich" is just as sexist as "Make me a sandwich, because god said so". Get mad all you want, but he's right on that. The only thing I didn't appreciate is he's equating every religious person as that crazy when they're not.

Now, to address your point about sexism historically as related to religion, I don't care, and I don't think it's relevant. It is a part of fundamentalist christianity (and many other religions) to tell women they need to be submissive to their husbands or males in society today. Nevermind historically what they did. They're doing it now. Period.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

To Bill Maher, and anyone on the Sift who thinks he has ever had a 'point' in his life... A pile of bull$#!+ wouldn't want to watch 1 second of this show because it would be afraid of getting crap on itself.
Really, BM? Really? You want to sit there and lecture people of faith about tolerance and mysoginy when you yourself are the worst mysoginist on the planet when it comes to Palin, Bachman, or any other conservative female? This twit takes the word 'sleazebucket' to a whole new low. What a lying, hypocritical specimen.
In other words - a typical neolib.
And factually ignorant to boot in regard to religion. Waste of breath to get into it, but ascribing 'mysoginy' to only religions is a typical neolib attempt to apply the time-honored tradition of retroactive standards. Mysogyny wasn't some sort of Christian invention. Nor was it even 'refined' by Christians. It was just the cold, hard, ugly, unfair way HUMANS existed for thousands of years. Women were on the short end of the stick in any facet of ancient life you want to name. But neolibs just love to sniff their noses at past problems and pretend that they only existed in the Christian world. Just ignore the fact that Christians have been (and remain) some of the strongest, most effective, transitional, and heartfelt movers of WOMENS rights, positive race relations, and yes even fair treatment for gays too.
And I notice the videosift hasn't posted the video of BM and his gay neolib buddies having a nice little joke about how they want to rape Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman.
"Tolerance". PTUI! Maher is the last person on the face of the planet with any moral authority to talk about issues relating to tolerance.

I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime".

Sorry for two posts, but I missed a section there in the middle.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

If you actually think he's a a sexist, you need your head examined. Does he make stereotypical jokes about women? Yes. Blacks? Yes. Men? Yes. Whites? Yes. He's not a racist, and he's not a sexist.

I see - so people who makes jokes about other races aren't racists. Unless - of course - you disagree with them politically. Then everything they say is racist, right? Maher is a racist. He is a sexist. He is a bigot. He openly mocks the disabled. He insults children. But since he confines his bigotry to people YOU dislike (such a Palin) then that cleanses him of his sin, doesn't it? What a bunch of typical liberal hypocrisy. If someone on the right 'joked' about Hillary Clinton deserving to be raped would that be funny? How about if they said that Nancy Pelosi's kids were a bunch of inbred retards?

The reason he's going after Palin and Bachmann is because they're up in the GOP polls, and they have TERRIBLE ideas.

You're half right. Up in polls, but not terrible ideas. That is a matter of personal opinion. I say Obama and the Democrats have terrible ideas, but I don't go around joking about how their children are inbred retards, or how they should be gay-raped like Maher and his supposedly 'progressive' guests do.

And I'm sorry, but those who take the bible that literally are sexists. "Make me a sandwich" is just as sexist as "Make me a sandwich, because god said so". Get mad all you want, but he's right on that.

I have never met this particular breed of mysoginist Christian cat that Maher and his ilk serve up as a strawman to represent all the religious world. Such a person may exist somewhere, but they are such an infinitesimally tiny fraction of Christianity that they really may as well not exist in the context that is being used here. The vast majority of the Christian world treats women with respect, and even reverance. There are other religions that are far more likely to treat women like dirt. And yet - strangely - Maher gives those kinds of religions a pass and continually harps on the one religion that is LEAST likely to manifest the behavior he supposedly purports to condemn.

But of course - he doesn't REALLY condemn that sort of mysoginy as long as it is applied to people he hates like Palin or Bachman. What a total wart of a man.

Nevermind historically what they did. They're doing it now. Period.

No they're not. Not so much in the Christian world anyway. The type of mysoginy you speak of is confined to a tiny minority of out there cults and branches on the fringe end of Judeo-Christianity. As I said - the real culprits are elsewhither. And yet I find it telling that Maher, his fans, and most other neolib don't care jack that women are mistreated all over the planet in non-Christian nations.

No - like most neolibs, Maher and his ilk dare not raise a critical voice where it is REALLY needed. Instead they will only take shots at the least offensive targets that they know are unlikely to shoot back. Hypocrites AND cowards. Typical of liberalism and leftism as a whole, really.

LOL. No, you're a racist if you actually intend to put one race over another, etc. If I joke about a friend of mine who can't dance and call him 'white', that's not racist. I don't believe that all white people suck at dancing. I'm sorry that's hard for you to understand. Plus, you also just contradicted yourself. Since he makes jokes about men, women, blacks, whites, I like him because he makes fun of people that I dislike? I have nothing against men, women, blacks, whites, etc. He's funny, and he's often insightful, even though I fundamentally disagree with him frequently. Did you not catch that I criticized him for characterizing all religious people as sexist?

BTW, I've laughed my butt off at Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi jokes. It's what grown ups are capable of doing - cognitive dissonance. I can fundamentally disagree with the point of the joke and still find the humor in it.

About Christians treating women with respect, it's sexist if you believe that women are delicate little flowers who must be treated with respect at all times, because their dainty little ears can't take but so much. Even if you don't beat them, cuss at them, etc., that's still sexist! If a women is supposed to always do as the husband says, that's sexist. Period. End of story. If you expect the wife to clean the house, cook the meals, etc. simply because she's the female of the couple, that's sexist.

Finally, Maher only takes shots at those least likely to fire back?! So taking shots at organized religion doesn't get immediate responses?! Taking shots at Palin doesn't get immediate responses?! Do you not pay attention at all?! I fundamentally disagree with Maher about organized religion, but I definitely would not call him a coward. He speaks his mind even when he knows he's gonna get blasted for saying it.

Your post, sir, is an example of what ideologues of your ilk do - fundamentally alter reality to fit your beliefs.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

If you actually think he's a a sexist, you need your head examined. Does he make stereotypical jokes about women? Yes. Blacks? Yes. Men? Yes. Whites? Yes. He's not a racist, and he's not a sexist.
I see - so people who makes jokes about other races aren't racists. Unless - of course - you disagree with them politically. Then everything they say is racist, right? Maher is a racist. He is a sexist. He is a bigot. He openly mocks the disabled. He insults children. But since he confines his bigotry to people YOU dislike (such a Palin) then that cleanses him of his sin, doesn't it? What a bunch of typical liberal hypocrisy. If someone on the right 'joked' about Hillary Clinton deserving to be raped would that be funny? How about if they said that Nancy Pelosi's kids were a bunch of inbred retards?
The reason he's going after Palin and Bachmann is because they're up in the GOP polls, and they have TERRIBLE ideas.
You're half right. Up in polls, but not terrible ideas. That is a matter of personal opinion. I say Obama and the Democrats have terrible ideas, but I don't go around joking about how their children are inbred retards, or how they should be gay-raped like Maher and his supposedly 'progressive' guests do.
And I'm sorry, but those who take the bible that literally are sexists. "Make me a sandwich" is just as sexist as "Make me a sandwich, because god said so". Get mad all you want, but he's right on that.
I have never met this particular breed of mysoginist Christian cat that Maher and his ilk serve up as a strawman to represent all the religious world. Such a person may exist somewhere, but they are such an infinitesimally tiny fraction of Christianity that they really may as well not exist in the context that is being used here. The vast majority of the Christian world treats women with respect, and even reverance. There are other religions that are far more likely to treat women like dirt. And yet - strangely - Maher gives those kinds of religions a pass and continually harps on the one religion that is LEAST likely to manifest the behavior he supposedly purports to condemn.
But of course - he doesn't REALLY condemn that sort of mysoginy as long as it is applied to people he hates like Palin or Bachman. What a total wart of a man.
Nevermind historically what they did. They're doing it now. Period.
No they're not. Not so much in the Christian world anyway. The type of mysoginy you speak of is confined to a tiny minority of out there cults and branches on the fringe end of Judeo-Christianity. As I said - the real culprits are elsewhither. And yet I find it telling that Maher, his fans, and most other neolib don't care jack that women are mistreated all over the planet in non-Christian nations.
No - like most neolibs, Maher and his ilk dare not raise a critical voice where it is REALLY needed. Instead they will only take shots at the least offensive targets that they know are unlikely to shoot back. Hypocrites AND cowards. Typical of liberalism and leftism as a whole, really.

Except, you know, Hell and eternal damnation.
>> ^bareboards2:
And no, I don't think Christians consider God and Jesus the same. Jesus is strictly New Testament and brought a message of love. I think that is why no one laughed at that joke -- it doesn't match his message.
>> ^hpqp:
Don't most christians consider God and Jeebs to be one and the same?
That being said, while the Bible's misogyny (some examples) is for the most part not directly attributable to Jeebs himself, doesn't his actions count for something? Out of 12 disciples, not a single worthy woman? I guess there's always the possibility of him being gay

Perhaps I can be more clear. Christ existing is obviously a necessary condition for Christianity to be true - but it's not sufficient. I suppose some people might say "Oh, Christ never existed so Christianity isn't true", but I don't think anyone's doing that here - and that's why I thought it was an odd thing to bring up. I think most non-Christian people here would say something more like "Jesus probably existed, and probably said more or less the same stuff that's in the Bible - but he didn't do miracles, isn't the Son of God, and didn't come back from the dead".

The belief that Jesus is a myth seems to be more prevelent, actually, and many of the people I have debated here have claimed this. I think only a very unthoughtful and intellectually incurious person could actually believe it, as you'd be hard pressed to even find a secular historian who does. He is by far the most influential person in history, which continues to this day. That in itself speaks to His claims. Our great land was founded on judeo-christian values, and the freedom that we enjoy today was predcated upon those values of personal liberty.. Even the pursuit of science was founded upon Christian understaniding; It was thought we could determine the operation of the cosmos because the Universe is orderly and has regularity due to Gods oversight. Yet, even with all this some people close their eyes to the simple truth that Jesus Christ even existed. Yet, these are the same people who champion their own rationality as being superior.

This martyr argument is another one you come back to, but surely with any reflection you understand why it isn't convincing. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on martyrs - there's been plenty of, for example, Muslims who've chosen to die for their beliefs in a great variety of circumstances, sometimes very pro-active ones. But even if Christianity has the most (or most spectacular martyrs), certainly there are many people who've died for all sorts of causes: religious, secular, or personal.

While it certainly says Christianity is a powerful idea that so many have died for it, I don't think an idea has to be true to prompt this level of conviction.

I think the martyr argument is very powerful when you consider the original disciples. They were the ones who truly knew if Jesus was in fact risen. If Jesus was not raised from the dead, there isn't any plausible explanation as to why they would all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant their testimony. It is also powerful for the early church because it was formed in the times of the living witnesses of Christ, and it was under very heavy persecuation. It was to a persons great disadvantage to follow Christ, socially, economically, and was often putting your life on the line. Being a Christian then was like being a Christian in Iran today. There is no good reason why the church should have ever survived under those conditions, but it did more than; it thrived and expanded expodentially. Yes, people martyr themselves today..most notably members of Islam. Islam isn't under persecution though..people are indoctrinated from birth and told if they even think one bad thought about Allah they will face eternal torment. There is no atonement in Islam, so if you screw up once you're done for. Under these conditions, and considering that Islam advocates exterminating all other religions and people, it isn't surprising it creates conditions in which people willingly martyr themselves. These situations however are night and day in regards to motivation.

First off, I should say that I appreciate the effort you're putting into legitimate debate here. I do. While I disagree with your recent points, I also accept them as honest reasoning and I think we're discussing things on a better level than we have in the past. So thanks, and I'll try to rein in my own douchebag forum persona.

Anyways, I'll (hopefully) explain what I was trying to get at better. It is my belief that religions often effectively "poison the well" for detractors by saying that the detractors are doing so for alternative motives, or that those detractors cannot understand the truth because of some flaw. To illustrate this, I was saying that Scientologists are quick to call out detractors (who are, to be fair, usually former members with a grievance) for their character flaws or crimes. Facetiously (because I don't actually know Scientologist beliefs), I was suggesting that they might also blame detractors' disagreements on confusing Thetans.

I was attempting to illustrate how awkward this attack is to refute for the detractor. The detractor certainly does have "crimes" (because, as I think we all agree, people all do things they aren't proud of). And he certainly can't be convincing if he says he has no Thetans. How can he make the case for that, when he doesn't even believe in Thetans anymore, and is definitely no longer being cleared of them?
From a perspective of a non-believer, a Christian detractor is in a similar position. Many (or even most) will have personal grievances that make their arguments sound suspect. And all will have sins. Many will have sins associated with their departure. Given that it's common Christian thought that sin clouds thought (or bars revelation or conscience or similar), we're left with a tidy way to undermine almost all detractors.

The most common objection I hear from someone is not that they haven't done evil, or that they aren't guilty of crimes against God. It's not even that they would disagree that they deserve to be punished. It's that they just defacto reject Gods authority over them because they don't want to stop living the way they do. In a very real way, they reject God over their preference to sin as they wish. This is exactly what the bible means in John 3:19-21 when it says:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

Even Christopher Hitchens outright admits it. Skip to 6:26 for his confession.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA

A person who is railing against Christianity due to personal grievances is not only not rational, but is completely disingenuous. Such a person willfully avoids the truth, because their objection isn't based on rational grounds, but emotional ones. I have yet to meet a single person who has a legitimate gripe against Christianity as it is described in the bible. It is all due to the failings of men who didn't live up to Gods word. Yet, to the world you're a Christian if you say you are, and every evil thing man has done in the name of Christianity is ascribed to it, ignoring the fact Christ specifically taught against it.

I understand your argument..but you're basically saying it's unfair because the bible accurately describes the condition of man. That it's easy for a Christian to pigeonhole unbelievers because man is in fact habitually evil and hypocritical as the bible describes.. Man has a sin problem, but how is it any different when one might reference a scientific worldview. To blame the wickedness of human beings on animal instincts, or the "reptile brain" (serpent consciousness), or chemical reactions. Survival of the fittest. Science even says that people who believe in God have it in their DNA to do so, and even associate it to a certain area of the brain. There is no real empirical evidence for any of this, so how is it much different than saying man is corrupted by sin? It really isn't. They are competing worldviews. Science says it's a physical issue, but the bible says it is spiritual. Only one can be right.

So my overall point is an analogy. Both the Scientologist and the Christian believer have similar reasons to doubt the detractor. However, I think we'd both agree that the Scientologist detractor is right despite those reasons. So while I understand that you still would not accept the Christian detractor, my point would be that we can't completely refute him on these grounds because he could (in principle) be the same as the Scientologist detractor. The differences between the Christian and the Scientologist detractor (with regards to these ideas) are generally only differences from the perspective of someone who already believes Christianity and not Scientology (and certainly I think we'd agree that believing Christianity is more rational than believing Scientology - I'm just using it as a convenient analogy).

My point was that instead of looking at him (the detractor) in terms of his grievances, or in terms of factors (like sin or Thetans) that could cloud his judgement - it's safer to just consider his arguments, which will stand or fall on their own qualities regardless of the speaker.

Yes, I do understand your analogy. Yes, a scientologist might reject a detractor because they think he has thetans, but we know those are made up. There is a similarity in that basic approach, but since Scientology is easily disproven, there aren't any arguments to consider. In that case, people are rejecting his truth because its clearly not true, not because it isn't possible that people reject truth because they are corrupted by evil. It's still a strawman any way you look at it. The point here is, what is the best explanation for reality and the human condition. If it is true that everyone sins, and that people are hypocrites, then that is something you as an unbeliever have to come to terms with. If I can accurately portray the human condition better than you can, and give reasonable explanations for human behavior according to biblical truth, those are obviously points in favor of the bible and not some cheap tact. It's perfectly legimate to point out that the objective stance people claim to take (and the claim they lay to reason itself) is mostly just smoke and mirrors for their personal prejudices and very real rebellion against Gods authority.

Quoting the Bible as source invalidates whatever point you want to make. It is not a valid source of information, just as Lord of the Rings isn't either.

.. to Hawaii?
>> ^TheGenk:

>> ^gwiz665:
Quoting the Bible as source invalidates whatever point you want to make. It is not a valid source of information, just as Lord of the Rings isn't either.

How dare you say that! When my time comes I will sail to the west.
Oh and, I'm so glad you're back @shinyblurry

The bible is a valid source for all kinds of information, including historical information about real people and civilizations, and is frequently used as a source by historians and archaelogists. The Lord of the Rings is a known work of fiction. There is no comparison between the two, and your statement is a fallacy to begin with.

>> ^gwiz665:
Quoting the Bible as source invalidates whatever point you want to make. It is not a valid source of information, just as Lord of the Rings isn't either.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The bible is a valid source for all kinds of information, including historical information about real people and civilizations, and is frequently used as a source by historians and archaelogists. The Lord of the Rings is a known work of fiction. There is no comparison between the two, and your statemet is a fallacy to begin with.
>> ^gwiz665:
Quoting the Bible as source invalidates whatever point you want to make. It is not a valid source of information, just as Lord of the Rings isn't either.



@gwiz665, allow me...

LotR wasn't the best example, so take Homer's Iliad: a valid source for all kinds of information, including historical information about real people and civilizations, and is frequently used as a source by historians and archaelogists. And it's not a fallacy. Plus, both books are works of fiction. (But the Iliad is way better, both with historical fact and it's mythological claims... guess thats what you get when the book was written by someone who understands story telling)

On the contrary, the historicity of the illad is in great dispute, is sparse at best, and certainly isn't cited very often by historians or archaelogists for much of anything. Archaelogical finds have confirmed some minor details and disputed others. It is widely considered to be mostly legendary.

Far from fiction, the bible has been confirmed to be accurate in great detail..as over 25,000 archaelogical discoveries over the last 150 years have proven the bible to be 100 percent historically reliable, and no archaelogical find has ever overturned a biblical reference. Over 80 persons from the bible have been confirmed externally to be historical people, and there are over 39 external sources confirming 100 facts about Jesus alone. Your premise is indeed a fallacy as it is a false equivalence strawman

You mean besides the Bible estimating the world to be only 10,000 years at most, when archaeological finds show just humans alone to be well over that? As in over 150,000 years old? 400,000 years old?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/29/worlds-oldest-human-remains-found-in-israel/

Now, I'm sure you're gonna make the argument that archaeologists are not dating artifacts correctly, which is funny, because archaeologists are in fact the experts on how to do this, but nevermind that...

Dude, come on. 100% historically reliable? Seriously?!

>> ^shinyblurry:

On the contrary, the historicity of the illad is in great dispute, is sparse at best, and certainly isn't cited very often by historians or archaelogists for much of anything. Archaelogical finds have confirmed some minor details and disputed others. It is widely considered to be mostly legendary.
Far from fiction, the bible has been confirmed to be accurate in great detail..as over 25,000 archaelogical discoveries over the last 150 years have proven the bible to be 100 percent historically reliable, and no archaelogical find has ever overturned a biblical reference. Over 80 persons from the bible have been confirmed externally to be historical people, and there are over 39 external sources confirming 100 facts about Jesus alone. Your premise is indeed a fallacy as it is a false equivalence strawman

>> ^heropsycho:

You mean besides the Bible estimating the world to be only 10,000 years at most, when archaeological finds show just humans alone to be well over that? As in over 150,000 years old? 400,000 years old?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/29/worlds-oldest-human-remain
s-found-in-israel/
Now, I'm sure you're gonna make the argument that archaeologists are not dating artifacts correctly, which is funny, because archaeologists are in fact the experts on how to do this, but nevermind that...
Dude, come on. 100% historically reliable? Seriously?!
>> ^shinyblurry:
On the contrary, the historicity of the illad is in great dispute, is sparse at best, and certainly isn't cited very often by historians or archaelogists for much of anything. Archaelogical finds have confirmed some minor details and disputed others. It is widely considered to be mostly legendary.
Far from fiction, the bible has been confirmed to be accurate in great detail..as over 25,000 archaelogical discoveries over the last 150 years have proven the bible to be 100 percent historically reliable, and no archaelogical find has ever overturned a biblical reference. Over 80 persons from the bible have been confirmed externally to be historical people, and there are over 39 external sources confirming 100 facts about Jesus alone. Your premise is indeed a fallacy as it is a false equivalence strawman



mind if i butt in? this claim you speak of, the one that says the world is less than 10000 years old...........appears no where in the bible. not a single instance, reference, or even an allusion to it. Young Earth theory (or, crap, as i like to call it) was created by some church dudes back in the day and came about because they took all the "begets" in the old testament and did math presuming, of course, that these were the only people to ever beget in the history of begetting on top of this taking the genesis creation story to be a literal word for word historical event (which is fine for some people, just not for me) and came up with 10 grand.

and truth be told, while not 100% historically accurate, for obvious reasons, the bible as a written work is, generally speaking, pretty reliable. the ancient hebrew, as with most cultures in those times, took their writings and history very seriously and took great care to preserve their history as accurately as possible. because of the more supernatural elements tho (the creation story for example) critics would completely disregard the body of archived history the bible encompasses all because of some fantastical stories that are woven throughout. that, by definition, is intellectually irresponsible

No, you're a racist if you actually intend to put one race over another, etc. If I joke about a friend of mine who can't dance and call him 'white', that's not racist.

If a white guy jokes about a black man liking fried chicken & collard greens then that is racist. Joking about whites not being able to jump is racist. It is the very epitome of racism. You are perhaps trying to make some sort of vivisection between 'racism' and 'hateful racism'. I do not make such distinctions. Racism is racism. I don't care how light the shade of the racism is. I call it what it is. There's no such thing as innocent racism.

Did you not catch that I criticized him for characterizing all religious people as sexist?

Yes - but I don't get how you can give the guy a pass for being a bigot in one breath and criticize him the next. If he's a bigot then you shouldn't defend him, and quite frankly choosing to watch his show when you KNOW he's a bigot is tacit approval of bigotry. I'm sure if you met one, you'd find that some members of the Klu-Klux-Klan were "funny, and often insightful, even though I fundamentally disagree with them frequently." A bigot is a bigot, and should be shunned, shamed, and ostracized from society - not given a free pass because they make you chuckle sometimes.

If you expect the wife to clean the house, cook the meals, etc. simply because she's the female of the couple, that's sexist.

I agree. But showing someone respect is not 'treating them like delicate little flowers'. It is simple common courtesy. When you are in a monogamous relationship, there comes a time when people divvy out the chores. A man who refuses to help because 'it's woman's work' is an idiot and a sexist. Likewise a woman who just expects the man to work 9-to-5 and does not contribute to the household herself is also a sexist.

Finally, Maher only takes shots at those least likely to fire back?!

By and large - yes. That's why he fills his audience with ideologically favorable clapping sheep. It's why he loads his guest lists with like 90% leftist neolib radicals. It's why why he gives himself long spans of time to conduct uninterrupted diatribes instead of engaging in real debates with active opponents. He's a coward, a bully, and a bigot. That's what cowardly, bigoted bullies do.

The belief that Jesus is a myth seems to be more prevelent, actually, and many of the people I have debated here have claimed this.

No, what counts is the intent of the joke. The other day, I was joking with a black friend and a white friend about how years ago a black friend of mine played a prank on someone, and the victim of said prank blamed me, and I joked that, "I can't believe they assumed I did it. There's a black guy standing RIGHT THERE!!!"

My black friend hearing the joke cracked up. It wasn't racist whatsoever. First off, he knew I wasn't serious. Secondly, the entire joke was pointing out that society often assumes blacks are guilty of crimes or wrongdoing simply because they're black. That's the entire point of the joke! It's not racist in the slightest! In fact, it's criticizing still present racism in society. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.

How can I defend Maher on some points and criticize him on others? It's really simple - he's a human being. Humans make mistakes, and can be correct. Maher is a bigot, I wasn't arguing that. I'm a bigot when it comes to people who lie or intentionally spread false information repeatedly. I have zero tolerance for people who do that. That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.

About the sexism stuff, you are the one saying that Christians traditionally haven't been sexist, and the proof is it's been traditionally against physical abuse, etc. Well, that doesn't prove a lack of sexism. That's my entire point. If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist! That means wives should do what they're told, and while it's more sexist to be told to "Make me a sandwich!" than something more respectful, it's still sexist that a woman must what she's told simply because a husband says so.

Finally, the bit about Maher's audience is laughable. Maher doesn't intentionally fill his audience with like minded sheep. I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live. I know... SHOCKING! While I won't dispute he tends to have more left wingers who agree with him, you must admit many times that's because those are the people who more often want to be on his show, and he's certainly gone toe to toe with the hard core conservatives quite frequently, such as Ann Coulter both on his show and in public debates. Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc. So even the moderates on his show you won't acknowledge anyway, so your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.

Thanks for playing though...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No, you're a racist if you actually intend to put one race over another, etc. If I joke about a friend of mine who can't dance and call him 'white', that's not racist.
If a white guy jokes about a black man liking fried chicken & collard greens then that is racist. Joking about whites not being able to jump is racist. It is the very epitome of racism. You are perhaps trying to make some sort of vivisection between 'racism' and 'hateful racism'. I do not make such distinctions. Racism is racism. I don't care how light the shade of the racism is. I call it what it is. There's no such thing as innocent racism.
Did you not catch that I criticized him for characterizing all religious people as sexist?
Yes - but I don't get how you can give the guy a pass for being a bigot in one breath and criticize him the next. If he's a bigot then you shouldn't defend him, and quite frankly choosing to watch his show when you KNOW he's a bigot is tacit approval of bigotry. I'm sure if you met one, you'd find that some members of the Klu-Klux-Klan were "funny, and often insightful, even though I fundamentally disagree with them frequently." A bigot is a bigot, and should be shunned, shamed, and ostracized from society - not given a free pass because they make you chuckle sometimes.
If you expect the wife to clean the house, cook the meals, etc. simply because she's the female of the couple, that's sexist.
I agree. But showing someone respect is not 'treating them like delicate little flowers'. It is simple common courtesy. When you are in a monogamous relationship, there comes a time when people divvy out the chores. A man who refuses to help because 'it's woman's work' is an idiot and a sexist. Likewise a woman who just expects the man to work 9-to-5 and does not contribute to the household herself is also a sexist.

Finally, Maher only takes shots at those least likely to fire back?!
By and large - yes. That's why he fills his audience with ideologically favorable clapping sheep. It's why he loads his guest lists with like 90% leftist neolib radicals. It's why why he gives himself long spans of time to conduct uninterrupted diatribes instead of engaging in real debates with active opponents. He's a coward, a bully, and a bigot. That's what cowardly, bigoted bullies do.

The 10,000 years thing is mostly derived from discerning the described geneology from Adam and Eve down. I'm not suggesting the Bible can't be a source for truth. I'm saying it's one source of many, and just like other information sources, some information is not valid, and all facts presented in the book should be read as such with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Translation: I have no problem if people use the Bible as sources of truth, but it must be balanced with other sources. Statements like "the Bible is 100% historically accurate" is an absurd lie, and the attitude is downright dangerous because it encourages blind acceptance of everything in the Bible, often taken literally. There likely has never been an actually history book ever written that's been unquestionably 100% accurate, either. I don't read the bible or any nonfiction book for that matter and assume everything in it is true.

That was my entire point of the post. It was not intended as an attack against Christians, or the Bible as a source of fact. It's an attack on the infallibility of the Bible as a source of knowledge, and those who make ridiculous statements like "nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong", when the above is an obvious example.

I do want to point out there's a difference between "Young Earth" arguments and arguments about how long human beings have been on the planet. I would agree with you the Bible doesn't actually say how long the earth or universe has been in existence. But it can be derived using biblical stories roughly how long humans have been on the earth. So, when those stories are taken literally, there have been numerous archeological finds that prove something in the Bible is false. That doesn't invalidate the entire Bible either, though.

>> ^smooman:

>> ^heropsycho:
You mean besides the Bible estimating the world to be only 10,000 years at most, when archaeological finds show just humans alone to be well over that? As in over 150,000 years old? 400,000 years old?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/29/worlds-oldest-human-remain
s-found-in-israel/
Now, I'm sure you're gonna make the argument that archaeologists are not dating artifacts correctly, which is funny, because archaeologists are in fact the experts on how to do this, but nevermind that...
Dude, come on. 100% historically reliable? Seriously?!
>> ^shinyblurry:
On the contrary, the historicity of the illad is in great dispute, is sparse at best, and certainly isn't cited very often by historians or archaelogists for much of anything. Archaelogical finds have confirmed some minor details and disputed others. It is widely considered to be mostly legendary.
Far from fiction, the bible has been confirmed to be accurate in great detail..as over 25,000 archaelogical discoveries over the last 150 years have proven the bible to be 100 percent historically reliable, and no archaelogical find has ever overturned a biblical reference. Over 80 persons from the bible have been confirmed externally to be historical people, and there are over 39 external sources confirming 100 facts about Jesus alone. Your premise is indeed a fallacy as it is a false equivalence strawman


mind if i butt in? this claim you speak of, the one that says the world is less than 10000 years old...........appears no where in the bible. not a single instance, reference, or even an allusion to it. Young Earth theory (or, crap, as i like to call it) was created by some church dudes back in the day and came about because they took all the "begets" in the old testament and did math presuming, of course, that these were the only people to ever beget in the history of begetting on top of this taking the genesis creation story to be a literal word for word historical event (which is fine for some people, just not for me) and came up with 10 grand.
and truth be told, while not 100% historically accurate, for obvious reasons, the bible as a written work is, generally speaking, pretty reliable. the ancient hebrew, as with most cultures in those times, took their writings and history very seriously and took great care to preserve their history as accurately as possible. because of the more supernatural elements tho (the creation story for example) critics would completely disregard the body of archived history the bible encompasses all because of some fantastical stories that are woven throughout. that, by definition, is intellectually irresponsible

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.

A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.

If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.

I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.

That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.

OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.

If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!

Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.

I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.

Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.

Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.

Untrue and hyperbole.

Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.

No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.

LOL! I wasn't at work! Where in the heck did that come from?! It's called context! There's social context (black friend knew me, knows I'm not a racist, knows what the intent was when I said it, I wasn't at work, I wasn't around others who might misinterpret it), and then there's the context of the joke, which you can discern that I'm actually poking fun of society often assuming the black guy did it. I'm smart enough to know I'd never make a joke like that at work. I also know it's a bad idea to for example play solitaire at work, too. Does that mean solitaire is an evil thing? OF COURSE NOT! The only thing you're pointing out is a joke like that heard out of context could be misinterpreted as racist because it involves race. I could see my joke being misinterpreted had my friend not known me. I wouldn't walk into a group of people who didn't know me and say the same joke! For that matter, I wouldn't walk up to a stranger and debate economic theory either. Doesn't make debating economic theory wrong! LOL...

Your point is ridiculous in this case. Racism was very often *fought* by comics using similar tactics. Are you suggesting Richard Pryor, Gene Wilder, Jon Stewart, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Louis CK, Eddie Murphy, Bill Cosby, all of them are racists?! It's ridiculous. Jon Stewart, who is ethnically part Jewish, makes jokes relating to Jewish stereotypes, so that makes him anti-semitic?! Kevin Smith made an entire movie making fun of Catholicism, and he's catholic. That makes him a Catholic hater?! There's an entire section of culture that has been positive in this regard, and you don't see this?!

If you can't understand that, your brain can't understand context, and what is acceptable in various social situations. The joke I told to the people I told it to, when I told it made everyone laugh and offended no one, and that was entirely expected. In no way was it ever said or implied that blacks are inferior to whites whatsoever. It's therefore NOT RACIST!

You've never heard of a christian husband telling their wife to do something and then she did it simply because he told her to? Uhhhh, Michelle Bachmann is on record saying that her husband told her to become a tax lawyer, and she did it simply because he told her to. That's what Maher was railing about as sexist, and he's dead right about that. That's not as sexist as him telling her, "Go make me a sandwich!" But it is sexist that she had to do it simply because he told her to because he's the husband, and she's the wife. Unless of course, in their marriage, if she told him to go become a nurse, he also had to do it simply because she told him to. But once that happens, that's no longer "wives must be submissive to their husbands". That's "spouses must be submissive to each other". That's the difference.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

No, what counts is the intent of the joke.
A white guy walks into Harlem and starts cracking racist jokes and telling the offended African-Americans, "It's OK because my INTENTION isn't racist..." If you told your joke where I worked, you'd be hauled into the Human Resources department and either instantly fired, or put through a merry bout of "Sensitivity Training" under the threat of being fired. You know as well as I do that there is an entire industry based around the reality that racism is irrelevant of intention of the speaker. All that matters that a comment can be interpreted as racist by a passer-by. That's racism under the law, and if you walked into the HR department with a bunch of crap about "intention" as your only justification you'd get your @$$ tossed out the door - and justifiably so. Quite frankly, you should be thanking your lucky stars that the guy you cracked wise to, or anyone else else in earshot, decided not to make an issue of it or you'd be unemployed.
If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend context.
I perfectly understand the archetecture of the excuses you have constructed around yourself. I simply reject them as factually incorrect, mentally simplistic, and culturally insensitive. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you other than your brain lacks the ability to comprehend.
That's the definition of a bigot - zero tolerance for the ideas of some others. That's not the same as a racist. Nice try diverting that one.
OK - for clarity... Maher is a bigot AND a racist AND a sexist AND whole bunch of other things. And being 'human' is never a justifiable excuse to satisfy Maher when he attacks people he hates. Humans do lots of stupid things. When they do, they are typically held accountable for it rather than getting a free pass.
If the bible says that wives must be submissive to their husbands, that's sexist!
Put simply, Paul's opinions about women are not "Christianity". He was a unique fellow, who also advocated remaining unmarried - and yet that was never christian doctrine. Regardless, as I said before, I've never once met this hypothetical Christian who tells his woman "go make me a sammich". The strawman is more rare than a fiscal conservative thought in Obama's brain. But as I said, roles assumed by couples are less 'sexism' and are more 'practical reality'.
I'm not sure you're aware of this, but people who agree with Maher tend to be the ones who go out of their way to see him live.
Fair enough. I stand corrected in regards to his audience being stacked purposefully. However, I maintain that it is stacked and Maher would be much more moderate in his crass behavior, bigotry, racism, and sexism if he had a more balanced audience that didn't consist of mostly ideologically sympathetic cheerleaders.
Finally, ANYONE to the left of you, you characterize as a neolib, lib, socialist, etc.
Untrue and hyperbole.
Your characterization of his guests isn't accurate in the slightest.
No - I'd say you simply find it uncomfortably accurate and therefore deny it.

I'm smart enough to know I'd never make a joke like that at work.

That should tell you something about it, should it not? If you wouldn't dare tell such a joke at work, why is the implied racism suddenly OK elsewhere? Racism and prejudice are not solitaire, or economic theory. They are cultural poison.

There's an entire section of culture that has been positive in this regard, and you don't see this?!

As I said - I see it. I just do not accept it as valid. I do not consider racism "OK" just because someone is being a racist while winking slyly. I do not accept prejudice as less vicious just because someone wraps it in a joke, or song, or some other form of entertainment. In fact, I think that sort of racism is (if anything) more subtle and therefore more pernicious and harmful. To me cloaking prejudice in entertainment is a cheap dodge, and I consider those who do it to be cowards of the lowest order.

It's therefore NOT RACIST!

And yet you admit you would not dare do it at work, even among your friends. Something "not racist" would be safe at work. The only difference is that at work there is an HR department that can punish you. Therefore you admit your comment IS racist, and your HR department would FIND it racist. But at home since there is no HR department around to punish your private conversations so it's all OK, ha ha ha aren't race jokes funny?

You've never heard of a christian husband telling their wife to do something and then she did it simply because he told her to? Uhhhh, Michelle Bachmann is on record saying that her husband told her to become a tax lawyer, and she did it simply because he told her to.

That's pure Bill Maher (I.E. BS). Bachmans said "the Lord" guided her to get a legal education, and her husband said "maybe you should go into tax law". Bachman has said that she was guided by her religious faith, and all her husband ever did was encourage her to follow her promptings. Her huband did not spank her, sit her down, and "order" her to be a tax lawyer, woman.

So according to Maher, a husband supporting his wife and encouraging her to follow her spiritual impressions is "sexist"? Really? As "sexist" as these wonderful gems?

"Michele Bachman's husband commanded her to become a tax lawyer? Guess she had already mastered pole dancing."
"Sarah Palin... Speaking of dumb tw&ts... (roar of audience laughter)"
"Bachmann, along with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would make two bimbos and then there’s Mitt Romney, a millionaire, Newt Gingrich, a professor. We just need a Skipper and a buddy and we got Gilligan’s Island."

And on and on. Oh - but it's 'funny', so that makes it OK, doesn't it?

Bachman has said that she was guided by her religious faith, and all her husband ever did was encourage her to follow her promptings.

You know what that tells me that I wouldn't make that joke at work? Because people I don't know may hear it, and telling jokes is not part of my job, since I'm an IT professional. This really isn't a hard concept to follow. You know what else I don't do at work? Talk about religion for the EXACT SAME REASON! But by your logic, I should never talk about religion to anyone, because someone might get offended! I don't talk politics at work because once again, it's not related to my job, and many people misinterpret things. Again, this is completely unacceptable in any other social setting? OF COURSE NOT! There are times and places for jokes, politics, and religion. Work generally isn't one of them.

It's not racism wrapped in a joke. Period. Definition of racist:

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by *hereditary factors* and that this endows some races with an *intrinsic superiority* over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

My joke was that society tends to unfairly assume blacks commit wrongdoing just because they're black. Does that imply distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors? No. Does it say one race is super to others because of hereditary factors? No.

It's not racist. It is a social critique of inherent racism in society, mainly of people who are racist by assuming "the black guy did it" because he's black.

FYI, there are plenty of things I could say that aren't racist that are inappropriate for work. At work, you are to avoid doing or saying anything unrelated to your job that unnecessarily inhibits productivity. I really don't understand how you're having a hard time grasping this. It would be inappropriate to come to work wearing a clown wig in my job. Is that racist? NO! Is it wrong to wear clown wigs generally speaking? NO! You're being ridiculous.

HR departments exist to promote productive workplaces, period. Their gripe would be that I made a joke that could have been interpreted as racist, even though it wasn't. Sorting out whether it was racist or not is a waste of company time.

In summary, you're being ridiculous if you think all those comedians and I are racists for telling a joke that is social commentary speaking out against racism.

On to Bachmann...



You lose. She recounted her husband saying, "Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law." You're wrong, period, end of story. There's no "maybe" in that. He said "you need to", and she did it. According to her own words, her husband told her to do this, and she did it because the bible says "wives must be submissive to their husbands." Don't try to weasel your way out of this. That's a sexist view, period. Maher didn't mischaracterize her here in the slightest. He called out what he considers an idiotic stance that is sexist in nature. And he's right, it is sexist. Does he call her a bunch of names? Sure, but understand this - he never once implied that Bachmann or Palin are stupid or anything else BECAUSE they are women. They're stupid because they say stuff like, "I got a post-doctorate degree in law because my husband told me to, and after all, that's what the Bible says!" And guess what that means? His rant wasn't sexist. Biased? Rude? Sure. But let's call it what it was.

Calling both of them bimbos isn't sexist. He's stating they're both females who lack intelligence. He never implied all women are dumb, or dumber than men, or anything of the sort. Ditto every other joke he made, save the poll dancing, which was implying that's all she was capable intellectually of doing (not women generally), or he was being absurd juxtaposing an extreme conservative with pole dancing as a hobby, or perhaps pointing out that those so bent on "traditional values" are often the ones who commit acts that violate them repeatedly (see several high profile conservative leaders being busted for sexual harassment, homosexual encounters illegally in public places, etc). Not sure which of those, but it never suggested women are dumb because they're women. Unless of course, you're a conservative intentionally trying to misinterpret him, which in that case, kudos!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I'm smart enough to know I'd never make a joke like that at work.
That should tell you something about it, should it not? If you wouldn't dare tell such a joke at work, why is the implied racism suddenly OK elsewhere? Racism and prejudice are not solitaire, or economic theory. They are cultural poison.
There's an entire section of culture that has been positive in this regard, and you don't see this?!
As I said - I see it. I just do not accept it as valid. I do not consider racism "OK" just because someone is being a racist while winking slyly. I do not accept prejudice as less vicious just because someone wraps it in a joke, or song, or some other form of entertainment. In fact, I think that sort of racism is (if anything) more subtle and therefore more pernicious and harmful. To me cloaking prejudice in entertainment is a cheap dodge, and I consider those who do it to be cowards of the lowest order.
It's therefore NOT RACIST!
And yet you admit you would not dare do it at work, even among your friends. Something "not racist" would be safe at work. The only difference is that at work there is an HR department that can punish you. Therefore you admit your comment IS racist, and your HR department would FIND it racist. But at home since there is no HR department around to punish your private conversations so it's all OK, ha ha ha aren't race jokes funny?
You've never heard of a christian husband telling their wife to do something and then she did it simply because he told her to? Uhhhh, Michelle Bachmann is on record saying that her husband told her to become a tax lawyer, and she did it simply because he told her to.
That's pure Bill Maher (I.E. BS). Bachmans said "the Lord" guided her to get a legal education, and her husband said "maybe you should go into tax law". Bachman has said that she was guided by her religious faith, and all her husband ever did was encourage her to follow her promptings. Her huband did not spank her, sit her down, and "order" her to be a tax lawyer, woman.
So according to Maher, a husband supporting his wife and encouraging her to follow her spiritual impressions is "sexist"? Really? As "sexist" as these wonderful gems?
"Michele Bachman's husband commanded her to become a tax lawyer? Guess she had already mastered pole dancing."
"Sarah Palin... Speaking of dumb tw&ts... (roar of audience laughter)"
"Bachmann, along with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would make two bimbos and then there’s Mitt Romney, a millionaire, Newt Gingrich, a professor. We just need a Skipper and a buddy and we got Gilligan’s Island."
And on and on. Oh - but it's 'funny', so that makes it OK, doesn't it?

You lose.

Do you even watch what you post. Bachman said "The Lord put it into my heart to go to law school". Not her husband. When she finished her basic degree the husband said she should get a post-grad degree. He didn't order her, "go get a tax degree". It was more that she - as previously - had options she came up with and he made his suggestion as to what he thought was a good idea. If she'd chosen something else there is nothing in his history that suggests he's have slapped it down. Quite the contrary. He has generaly come off as a guy who supports his wife in her decisions. It wasn't his choice to have her go into politics. That was hers. But he supports it. Oh - what a sexist pig.

Sure, but understand this - he never once implied that Bachmann or Palin are stupid or anything else BECAUSE they are women.

So what? If some jack-hole serves up watermelon & fried chicken to African Americans, he could turn and say that he NEVER IMPLIED that he chose those foods just because they were black. But that doesn't make the choice insensitive, stupid, and racist. Likewise - Maher's crocodile tears about not being a sexist just because he happens to hate conservative women is bunting tossed on a pile of crap.

"Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law."

Dispute it all you want. That's what her husband says, and she explained she did it because the Bible says wives must be submissive to her husbands. It's right there in the video. Again, spin that all you want. Even if it's a "suggestion", she did it because the husband said to because wives are to do what they're told. You can deflect all you want about why she got her first degree. I never said anything about that. I said she got the post-doctorate degree because her husband told her to, and she believes she's to do as told by her husband because the Bible says so. Period. Done. To argue against this is completely disregarding what she doesn't even deny.

So you don't deny he ever said Palin or Bachmann were dumb because they're women. Dude, that's the freaking definition of sexism!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism

sexism - discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men
discrimination - unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice

Sexism = unfair treatment on the basis of sex, or action based on prejudice from gender

He didn't base one thing on them being women! NOT A SINGLE THING! You can't redefine words to fit your argument! He's slamming them because he thinks they're stupid people, not because all females are stupid.

Was he insensitive? Yes. Rude? Yes. Offensive to some for various reasons? Yes. Sexist? NO! He discriminated based on intelligence or even political philosophies, not on gender.

P.S. It's good to know if I ever invite a black friend over for dinner, I can't serve any of those dishes because that would make me a racist. I'll be sure to let them know that since I'm white, when he's around me, he's never allowed to play rock music, put hockey or golf on TV, ask if I'd like to test drive an SUV, offer me a Heineken, or ask what I don't like about my job. I should be offended if any of those occur.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You lose.
Do you even watch what you post. Bachman said "The Lord put it into my heart to go to law school". Not her husband. When she finished her basic degree the husband said she should get a post-grad degree. He didn't order her, "go get a tax degree". It was more that she - as previously - had options she came up with and he made his suggestion as to what he thought was a good idea. If she'd chosen something else there is nothing in his history that suggests he's have slapped it down. Quite the contrary. He has generaly come off as a guy who supports his wife in her decisions. It wasn't his choice to have her go into politics. That was hers. But he supports it. Oh - what a sexist pig.
Sure, but understand this - he never once implied that Bachmann or Palin are stupid or anything else BECAUSE they are women.
So what? If some jack-hole serves up watermelon & fried chicken to African Americans, he could turn and say that he NEVER IMPLIED that he chose those foods just because they were black. But that doesn't make the choice insensitive, stupid, and racist. Likewise - Maher's crocodile tears about not being a sexist just because he happens to hate conservative women is bunting tossed on a pile of crap.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by rasch187.